about | support
home
 

Search Used

Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
135 433594 Apr 3, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $380.93
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
8.75
9.40
8.3
24_70EX_med_1_

Specifications:
The Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF is one of several new products to be introduced at PMA 2001 by Sigma Corporation of Japan (2-3-15, lwado-Minami, Komae-shi, Tokyo) This lens covers focal lengths from 24mm ultra wide angle to 70mm medium telephoto and provides a large f2.8 aperture at all focal lengths. Its design employs three (3) aspherical lens elements to minimize spherical aberration, astigmatism and sagittal comma flare. The use of two (2) SLD (The Special Low Dispersion) glass elements results in excellent correction of chromatic aberration and provides a high level of optical performance and 24-70rnm F2.8 EX ASPHERICAL DG DF has high contrast and resolution. The lens also incorporates Dual Focus mechanism. It is easy to hold the lens, since the focusing ring does not rotate during auto focusing, and yet provides a wide focus ring for easy to use manual focus. Since the front of the lens does not rotate, it allows the use of a flower shaped "Perfect Hood" and facilities the use of polarizing filters. The lens materials used in this new lens are lead and arsenic free ecological glass.


 


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9  next
          
philipmccusker
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Aug 29, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1
Review Date: Nov 27, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $342.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Nice zoom range, sharp focus, f2.8
Cons:
Noisy Focus

ive had this lens for a couple of days now, Ive had no problems with the shots Ive taken over the couple of days - some motorsport and some portrait.

The Focus is a bit fiddly when switching from AF to Manual, and its a Little noisy for my liking.

I would reccomend it if you cant afford the Canon equivalent.


Nov 27, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add philipmccusker to your Buddy List  
Radeon-888
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 9, 2005
Location: Canada
Posts: 0
Review Date: Nov 27, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $300.00 | Rating: 10 

 
Pros: Sharp at f/2.8, excellent AF, VERY sharp at f/8
Cons:
loud AF

This is a bargain and compares with my 24-70L.

Excellent !


Nov 27, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add Radeon-888 to your Buddy List  
jvarszegi
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 5, 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3931
Review Date: Nov 19, 2005 Recommend? no | Price paid: $429.00 | Rating: 2 

 
Pros: Optical and build quality
Cons:
Focus accuracy, focus loudness, focus speed, ergonomic design

I wanted to like this lens, but I can't. Like the 18-50 EX DC I wound up eventually selling, my 24-70 EX has horribly inconsistent focus. Sometimes it will back focus, sometimes front focus; usually, pressing the shutter halfway will result in a major focus adjustment each time, but the focus will still be incorrect. My body has perfect focus with several Canon lenses.

In addition, the focus is slow and VERY loud. People describe the Canon 35mm f/2 with terms like "wasp in a matchbox", but I estimate that the 24-70 EX is at least 2 to 3 times as loud. Put this together with the slow focusing, hunting, and altogether missed focuses, and it becomes a major annoyance.

Although I rate the build quality fairly highly (the lens is tight although not weather-sealed), it is not perfect. The zoom is not perfectly smooth throughout its range, for instance. In addition, the manual focus switch is extremely confusing and not supported by the meager manual. You have to zoom to 24mm, then flip the switch to manual, and then slide the manual focus ring backwards to engage manual focus. This sliding focus ring is also apt to slide back into the "automatic" position during use, leading to a missed shot and maybe a damaged lens if you're not careful.

Mine was acceptably sharp for a $400 lens, but not as sharp as copies of the 24-70L and Tamron 28-75 I've seen.

I exchanged it for the 24-70L (because B & H was nice enough to let me do that two days after the exchange period ended!). I gave it such a low rating because a lens that can't focus gets no benefit from sharp optics or a low price, and neither does its owner.


Nov 19, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add jvarszegi to your Buddy List  
marsupialj
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jul 21, 2005
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 4
Review Date: Nov 15, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 7 

 
Pros: Cheap, Fast, and pretty.
Cons:
Heavy, Akward on 1.6, Must be stopped down, rechipping, filter size.

This lense, while definitely worth the asking price, is not as good as I thought it would be.

First, I have to stop down to f4.0 to get acceptable sharpness. Second, it's one heavy sucker. Thirdly, the 82 mm filter size is horrendous: we'd be much better off with a 77mm thread.

Couple all this with re-chipping nightmares, and you may find it not worth your time. If you're on a tight budget, it might be one for you.


Nov 15, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add marsupialj to your Buddy List  
soren
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Apr 7, 2002
Location: United States
Posts: 9
Review Date: Oct 31, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: fast accurate focus, sharp images, good range, well built.. What can I say, my favorite lens.
Cons:
audible focus sounds, back focuses with 20 D when used with a 550EX flash and the autofocus assist light fires.. (all sigma zooms, do this to me)

I am a Sigma fan, and it is probably this lens that made me this way. I must say this is the best lens investment I ever made.

I also own (owned, just sold) the Canon 24-70 (2.8 L) and found focus speed similar, and accuracy better on the Sigma. I also had back focus issues with the Canon on my 1D Mark II but none with my Sigma.

I have dropped the lens and made the right side of the image go out of focus, but this was fixed by Sigma.

It is noisier than the Canon and not as sharp at the corners of the image, but the center always seems sharper than the Canon. I have also seen Canon 24-70's that had very wierd corners.

Quality control at Sigma and Canon seem to be lacking, I did buy a 24-70 that was awful, so if you buy this lens, take a picture of a newspaper at several focal lengths to see if it is a good one, if not send it back and get one as good as mine.

I have shot the majority of several hundred weddings with this lens


Oct 31, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add soren to your Buddy List  
PaulRobin
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 20, 2005
Location: Switzerland
Posts: 0
Review Date: Oct 20, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $350.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Excellent clearness and piqué, generous contrast, a standard 2.8 "pro" in optical quality, nothing to repeat...
Cons:
Good construction but far behind the completion L...



Oct 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add PaulRobin to your Buddy List  
ganderhead
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 16, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 6
Review Date: Oct 20, 2005 Recommend? | Price paid: Not Indicated

 
Pros: - sharp - affordable - comes with hood & bag
Cons:
- heavy & bulky - 82 mm filter.. expensive - seems 2b extremely vulnerable to lens flares - build quality good but not excellent - zooming is loud and a bit slower than with canon lens - canīt be used too well with EOS 350D internal flash.. throws shadows..

Hi,

bought this lens as my standard zoom and take ~75% of my shots
with it.

i am quite satisfied.. sharpness & colour are okay- and even better when you take the price into account.

see proīs and conīs above.

peopleīs attention can be caught by it...hard to take shots of unaware people...

i recently found out that this lens is EXTREMELY vulnerable against lens flare... i had several nightshots that had problems with flares.. even with the hood mounted. the same shot with the 17-40L didnīt have the problem... strange.

my conclusion.. quite nice for the every day shooting.. by next spring, iīll go with the 24-105L to have a wider range.

cheers
marc


Oct 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add ganderhead to your Buddy List  
ganderhead
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Oct 16, 2005
Location: Germany
Posts: 6
Review Date: Oct 20, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: - sharp - affordable - comes with hood & bag
Cons:
- heavy & bulky - 82 mm filter.. expensive - seems 2b extremely vulnerable to lens flares - build quality good but not excellent - zooming is loud and a bit slower than with canon lens - canīt be used too well with EOS 350D internal flash.. throws shadows..

Hi,

bought this lens as my standard zoom and take ~75% of my shots
with it.

i am quite satisfied.. sharpness & colour are okay- and even better when you take the price into account.

see proīs and conīs above.

peopleīs attention can be caught by it...hard to take shots of unaware people...

i recently found out that this lens is EXTREMELY vulnerable against lens flare... i had several nightshots that had problems with flares.. even with the hood mounted. the same shot with the 17-40L didnīt have the problem... strange.

my conclusion.. quite nice for the every day shooting.. by next spring, iīll go with the 24-105L to have a wider range.

cheers
marc



Oct 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add ganderhead to your Buddy List  
daemeon
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Mar 24, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 212
Review Date: Sep 17, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: F2.8. Very VERY well built. Focusing is smooth, and Zooming is effortless.
Cons:
Manual focus is weird. f2.8 is a bit soft. Focusing motor is L-O-U-D! Heavy, though not a problem for me. Inconsistent focusing at 24mm.

This lens is good but could have been stellar. My copy is sharp, but only at f4 and above. I made the terrible TERRIBLE mistake of comparing it to my 80-200 f2.8L, and decided almost immediately that it wasn't a keeper. The L just abused it at 70-80mm. Focusing was dead on at 70mm but left a bit to be desired at 24mm. All in all, I'd be comfortable using this lens at f4 and higher, but for my money, I need another f2.8 zoom, and I don't see a Canon in my future right now. Ask me again in six months.

Sep 17, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add daemeon to your Buddy List  
RikWriter
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Location: United States
Posts: 2502
Review Date: Aug 10, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $400.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: Sharp, good color, good contrast. Solidly built, good focal range.
Cons:
Heavy. Big, expensive filter. Loud AF mechanism.

I got into this lens on a trade and had originally planned to turn around and sell it...until I used it. It's dead sharp and the color rendition and contrast is just incredible for the price. Not a fast or quiet focus, but just a steal for the price.

Aug 10, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add RikWriter to your Buddy List  
JL77
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Dec 20, 2004
Location: Canada
Posts: 145
Review Date: Aug 10, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $300.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: fast zoom, excellent built and feel, looks nice, good contrast,
Cons:
lack sharpness wide open, heavy.

I have the non-marco version. Great Price for a 2.8 zoom, especially when it is much cheaper than 24-70L. It has excellent built and manual focusing feel. While the images quality is decent, but I can't say it is a very sharp lens. Maybe I am spoiled by my other canon primes. But nonetheless, it is a great to carry one lens to walkaround and this will do the job for you.

Aug 10, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add JL77 to your Buddy List  
cemkamaoglu
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Jun 26, 2003
Location: Turkey
Posts: 0
Review Date: Aug 7, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: Not Indicated | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: very close to Canon 24-70/2.8!
Cons:
when does Sigma come up w a HSM on it?



Aug 7, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add cemkamaoglu to your Buddy List  
paparazzinick
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: Jan 8, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 7405
Review Date: Jul 26, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $320.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: good build, sharp pics, cheap price, solid, alternative to canon L
Cons:
Heavy, but what do you expect from an f2.8 lens that is built to be beaten around

I use this lens primarly for weddings and PJ work. It is very sharp and the color in the pictures are just as good as some canon L's that I have used. Great alternative to canon L lenses when you are on a budget or just want to save some money for more lenses. Sigma makes a solid lens, so don't be fooled from the price.

Jul 26, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Visit Homepage Add paparazzinick to your Buddy List  
hcoo
Offline
Image Upload: Off



Registered: May 11, 2005
Location: Philippines
Posts: 0
Review Date: Jul 20, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $540.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: Big Apperture; Sharp; Usefull lense;
Cons:
Heavy; stif zoom ring; complicated controls for manual focus; AF-hunt sometimes;

Good Lense; I already sold mine-I upgrade to 17-40mm 4L; This Lense is very useful and this is my walk around lense but its heavy... nice and sharp. Good in Low light conditions. F u can't afford "L" lense, this is a better alternative... w/c cost lesser.

Jul 20, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add hcoo to your Buddy List  
rkinz
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 26, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 145
Review Date: Jul 2, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $439.00 | Rating: 8 

 
Pros: sharp, even at f/2.8; very inexpensive compared to competition (Canon); color and contrast very good if not excellent
Cons:
AF noisy and slow compared to competition (Canon and Tamron), but good enough for everything but sports; large & heary; strange filter size

As anyone who reads more than a few reviews for any particular lens should know by now, you can't judge a lens by a single copy, or even a few copies. Recommendations based on tests of 1, 2, 3 or even 4 lenses are nonsense. Recently I had to try 4 copies of a Canon 70-200 f/4 before I got one that was sharp wide open.

I've had great, good and bad copies of lenses of the exact same type from all the major manufacturers. They key is the general direction of the user reviews. Some lenses are uniformly bad, so don't waster your time. Some are generally good but not great, so if the price is right go for it. Some can be great if you take the time to make sure you get a good one, and a very, very few seem to not have any negative reviews at all (e.g., the Canon f/1.4 35L). The Sigma 24-70 f/2.8 seems to fall into the catagory of "can be great, but be prepared to send a lot of copies back if necessary".

Others on this board say their Sigma 24-70 is "soft" wide open. Mine (on the first try, no less) is the sharpest lens I've ever tested--and I've tested many "L" class Canon lenses, including the 50 f/1.4, 85 f/1.8, 100 f/2, 135 f/2, 24-70 f/2.8, 70-200 f/4 and 70-200 f/2.8. I knew this Sigma was going to be something special when I took a casual snapshot of my daughter and saw the detail in her face: skin pores and strands of hair were easily discernable.

This sharpness of this lens is better than a Tamron 28-75 I just sold (which until this Sigma was the sharpest lens I've ever had), and its much, much better than two Canon 24-70 f/2.8s I recently tried (and sent back). For what they charge for this lens, Canon should be ashamed of themselves.

Color and contrast of the Sigma are not as good as Canon "L" lenses, but they are the equal of Tamron's 28-75. The lens is bigger than the Tamron, but lighter than the Canon. An acceptable compromise to my mind.

Biggest downside for me is the noisy and relatively slow autofocus. Canon and Tamron have Sigma beat here. Don't try to take pictures of your kid's soccer match with this lens unless your prepared for a keeper ratio of 1 to 5 or worse. I have other lenses I'll use for sports.

All in all I'm very happy with this lens. To my mind its the best value in this focal range out there. I give it an "8" overall (for the AF) and a "10" if you consider the price in relation to the competition. Just be patient when looking for a good copy.


Jul 2, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add rkinz to your Buddy List  
hubarto
Offline
Image Upload: Off

Registered: Feb 22, 2005
Location: United States
Posts: 16
Review Date: Jul 1, 2005 Recommend? yes | Price paid: $370.00 | Rating: 9 

 
Pros: f2.8, Solid, Hood, Sharp
Cons:
No USM focusing, 82mm filters, Slightly stiff zoom at first, Two step AF/MF change

I got this lens a week ago. I really like it. It feels really nice and solid. I have thouroughly tested this lens and it seems to perform well. It is pretty sharp throughout all the aperatures and at times even f2.8 is pretty sharp. Occasionally, the lens isn't quite as sharp when shooting at a particular focal length and focusing distance. Though, some of that could possibly be my fault. Overall though, I think it is pretty sharp.

Focusing speed seems pretty quick for a non-USM lens. The focusing noise is only annoying if you are focusing from far to near or vice versa.

Lens has a nice feel and build quality to it. The 82mm filter size does get expensive for filters. However, the only thing that I anticipate putting in front of the lens is a polarizer, so the extra cost isn't that big of a deal. I have even heard of people putting 77mm filters on this lens with a 1.6 crop body with no vignetting problems.

The zoom ring is a little stiff at first, but after a week of use, it seems to have loosened to acceptable levels.

The only thing that I really dislike about this lens is the two step method to switch between AF and MF. Though I think I will get used to it.

Many 20D users have reported focusing problems with this lens and I think mine may have the same problem. Though it doesn't seem that bad at all. I will probably send it in anyway just to have it calibrated for my camera body so it will work that much better.


Jul 1, 2005
View profile View recent posts View reviews Add hubarto to your Buddy List  

   



Sigma 24-70mm f2.8 EX Aspherical DG DF

Buy from B&H Photo
Reviews Views Date of last review
135 433594 Apr 3, 2014
Recommended By Average Price
88% of reviewers $380.93
Build Quality Rating Price Rating Overall Rating
8.75
9.40
8.3
24_70EX_med_1_


Page:  1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 · 9  next